Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Abby Normal]

Mark Dixie apparently managed to pull off a double attack while completely off his head on Majuana and Cocaine in an apparent 'psychotic Episode'?

Yours Jeff

and was caught

[Patrick S]

Because you have many pressing comments to make on YouTube?

uh....okay.....

Perhaps if you addressed the issues being raised in a rational manner rather than getting personal, you'd find the experience less stressful.

You've raised no issues that CAN be addressed rationally. That's not stressful. It's pointless.

I realise that being wedded emotionally to a pet theory makes opposing viewpoints seem like a personal attack, this is why it is always better to stay objective.

I'm not 'wedded emotionally' to a pet theory. I have no theory. No suspect. All I have is information that I have found convincing and information that I have not found convincing. I rely on experts. I don't proclaim to be an expert.

It's quite popular on this board (you're new here so you may be ignorant of this fact) to dismiss the opinion of "experts" if it does not jibe with certain theories or ideas that one may find attractive. I'm not immune to finding certain suspects or ideas attractive. Hell, I find the Lechmere idea quite attractive. I've said many times, I'll read the book and see the movie. Alas, based on the information I've been exposed to, it's hogwash. That could change. I'd be shocked. But it could happen.

In my line of work I've done a lot of contract work at the federal level (in the States), in Washinton, D.C. Over the years, I've had multiple conversations with individuals who have caught far more killers than I have (my tally stands firmly at zero).

They believe in profiles because they've used them and they've worked. I'm not going to argue the merits for profiling here because I've seen many threads where profiles are derided and mocked. All that I'm saying here is that law enforcement "experts" I've spoken with use it, believe in it. They categorize things, differentiating between things like 'organized' and 'disorganized' because it has helped SOLVE cases and find killers.

It was once vividly explained to me by an analyist with the FBI (over dinner, unfortunately) that one of the first things they note when categorizing and building a profile is the condition of the body and the state of the crime scene. With 'disorganized' killers the body is usually a bloody mess ("ripped up like a pig in the market", if you will), with multiple wounds. Dissection is a common trait. 'Disorganized' killer take trophies, often in the form of body parts ('organized' killers often take personal items from the victim). "Organized" killers often stalk victims for extended periods and rehearse their crimes methodically. A friend of mine told me that with 'organized' killers you often never find the actual crime scene due to the fact that the killer is obsessed with concealing evidence. As well, bodies are often NEVER found (unless the killer leads officials to the site). Another rather disturbing hallmark of the organized killer is that fact that they plan so meticulously - in large part - because they wish to spend a lot of time with the victim, often both before and after death. "Disorganized" killers kill quickly, do a lot of damage, make a mess, and leave the scene quickly.

The primary goal, again as it was stated to me, in cateorizing as to TYPE of killer is to tell law enforcement what kind of person they should look for:

Organized killers are often older, will likely be employed, outwardly charming, intelligent. High functioning people you might call 'normal'.

Disorganized killers are often young, and are usually diagnosed as and clearly are mentally ill. They are usually londers who have great difficulty in society. The are usually unemployed. They are often of very poor habits with respect to dress and hygeine.

Your argument simply isn't convincing to me. Sorry.

That's okay. I'm not really trying to convince you.

See above.

[John G]

I must have my head up my arse then as I still don't see the relevance of the 400,000 people whom Cornwell said shared the same haplotype as Sickert (12 years ago when we had only identified a fraction of the haplotype and subclades we know today) to the number of people who share completely different haplotypes found on the shawl. Why don't you explain to me the relevance of that 400,000 number that you quoted to the press?

It isn't relevant because Kosminski's haplotype is different to Sickert's! In any event the figure of 400,000 was based upon a genetic diversity of 1% for Sickert, with the final figure being arrived at by considering 1% of the British population at the time (estimated to be 40 million but probably closer to 30 million). However, why use the population of Britain as your starting point? Why not London (5.4 million in 1888) or even Whitechapel?

As regards Kosminski, as I have posted before his haplogroup is T1a1. Now, in the UK and Wales the current genetic frequency for T1 is 2.17%; 80% of the samples in the T1 tree fall within the T1a1 subclade, so we are dealing with a genetic diversity of around 1.736%. Thus, if we consider the population of London in 1888, 5.4 million, then around 93744 Londoners at the time shared Kosminski's haplogroup and could have deposited the genetic material. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...C3376494/#mmc2 The relevant bits are page 7 and Table S3.

Of course, the problem is provenance! We do not know that the genetic material was deposited in 1888, nor do we know that it was deposited by a Londoner, which leaves us precisely...no where!

Hope this helps,

John

By the way. I'm happy to subject my above analysis to Site peer review!

[Jeff Leahy]

and was caught

Well no, not for about three or four years when by chance he got into a fight over football in a bar and had a random DNA test.

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

As regards Kosminski, as I have posted before his haplogroup is T1a1. Now, in the UK and Wales the current genetic frequency for T1 is 2.17%; 80% of the samples in the T1 tree fall within the T1a1 subclade, so we are dealing with a genetic diversity of around 1.736%. Thus, if we consider the population of London in 1888, 5.4 million, then around 93744 Londoners at the time shared Kosminski's haplogroup and could have deposited the genetic material. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...C3376494/#mmc2 The relevant bits are page 7 and Table S3.

Thanks for this.

Unfortunately, it's still not clear how that T1a1 haplogroup/haplotype was arrived at. Apparently it came from comparing some information obtained from the "shawl" with a database. As they had a sample from a relation of Aaron Kozminski in the direct female line, there should have been no mystery about his mitochondrial haplotype. But the book doesn't comment on whether or not the haplotype determined directly from the relation's sample was T1a1.

It seems that there is some extrapolation going on here, based on parts of the mitochondrial DNA on the "shawl" rather than a full sequence (certainly for the "Eddowes" DNA, only a single short segment was matched). I think we really need to know exactly what was measured before we can discuss whether the match is statistically significant.

[Theagenes]

It isn't relevant because Kosminski's haplotype is different to Sickert's! In any event the figure of 400,000 was based upon a genetic diversity of 1% for Sickert, with the final figure being arrived at by considering 1% of the British population at the time (estimated to be 40 million but probably closer to 30 million). However, why use the population of Britain as your starting point? Why not London (5.4 million in 1888) or even Whitechapel?

As regards Kosminski, as I have posted before his haplogroup is T1a1. Now, in the UK and Wales the current genetic frequency for T1 is 2.17%; 80% of the samples in the T1 tree fall within the T1a1 subclade, so we are dealing with a genetic diversity of around 1.736%. Thus, if we consider the population of London in 1888, 5.4 million, then around 93744 Londoners at the time shared Kosminski's haplogroup and could have deposited the genetic material. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...C3376494/#mmc2 The relevant bits are page 7 and Table S3.

Of course, the problem is provenance! We do not know that the genetic material was deposited in 1888, nor do we know that it was deposited by a Londoner, which leaves us precisely...no where!

Hope this helps,

John

By the way. I'm happy to subject my above analysis to Site peer review!

Hi John,
I was being facetious.
Of course it's not relevant for the reason you stated, but many here have been throwing this 400,000 number around from Cornwell's book because it's the only the exposure they've had to mtDNA and assumed it's all the same. Trevor has been particularly egregious in this, even going so far as to repeat in an interview with a paper.

[insert face palm smilie]

[John G]

Thanks for this.

Unfortunately, it's still not clear how that T1a1 haplogroup/haplotype was arrived at. Apparently it came from comparing some information obtained from the "shawl" with a database. As they had a sample from a relation of Aaron Kozminski in the direct female line, there should have been no mystery about his mitochondrial haplotype. But the book doesn't comment on whether or not the haplotype determined directly from the relation's sample was T1a1.

It seems that there is some extrapolation going on here, based on parts of the mitochondrial DNA on the "shawl" rather than a full sequence (certainly for the "Eddowes" DNA, only a single short segment was matched). I think we really need to know exactly what was measured before we can discuss whether the match is statistically significant.

Thanks, Chris,

I agree. In fact I'm now starting to have serious misgivings about Edwards' claim that it is a matter of "case closed"! Maybe it should be a matter of case reopened!

[pinkmoon]

The shawl could never have been at any of the murder scenes so how can it have Kosminski and eddowes d.n.a on it? I think the word we are looking for rhymes with Maude.

[Theagenes]

Thanks for this.

Unfortunately, it's still not clear how that T1a1 haplogroup/haplotype was arrived at. Apparently it came from comparing some information obtained from the "shawl" with a database. As they had a sample from a relation of Aaron Kozminski in the direct female line, there should have been no mystery about his mitochondrial haplotype. But the book doesn't comment on whether or not the haplotype determined directly from the relation's sample was T1a1.

It seems that there is some extrapolation going on here, based on parts of the mitochondrial DNA on the "shawl" rather than a full sequence (certainly for the "Eddowes" DNA, only a single short segment was matched). I think we really need to know exactly what was measured before we can discuss whether the match is statistically significant.

The book is very vague on this, but I believe in the BBC interview Jari described it as a mitochondrial match so I would think we are left to assume that M is T1a1 as is the semen depositor. And as John pointed out, it doesn't seem to be particularly rare.

In the case of the Karen Miller match, the presence of the global private mutation would seem to indicate a familial relationship with the blood depositor even if only a small segment was recovered.

But clearly we have to take all of this with a grain of salt until it's properly published.

[John G]

Hi John,
I was being facetious.
Of course it's not relevant for the reason you stated, but many here have been throwing this 400,000 number around from Cornwell's book because it's the only the exposure they've had to mtDNA and assumed it's all the same. Trevor has been particularly egregious in this, even going so far as to repeat in an interview with a paper.

[insert face palm smilie]

Yes, I'd gathered that! I think I know, however, what highly respected source publication Trevor used for his information: The figures relating to Sickert can be found on p283 of: Jack The Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation, 2005 ed. Forget who wrote it- I think it might have been some fellow by the name of Trevor Marriott!

[Chris]

I think the word we are looking for rhymes with Maude.

No, I think there is no basis for accusing anyone of fraud.

In fact I don't think there's any basis for suggesting an explanation at all without more information about the scientific findings.

But what I suspect is that those findings will turn out to be not as conclusive as the author believes. Just as the historical research behind most "case closed" books has not been as conclusive as their authors have believed. Just because this one is based on DNA, rather than documents, is no reason to shout "fraud".

[Theagenes]

Yes, I'd gathered that! I think I know, however, what highly respected source publication Trevor used for his information: The figures relating to Sickert can be found on p283 of: Jack The Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation, 2005 ed. Forget who wrote it- I think it might have been some fellow by the name of Trevor Marriott!

Lol!

The irony of course is that, as you noted, the real number for T1a1 might be over two times that, if you base it on the whole population of Britain (as the 400,000 number was).

[Chris]

The book is very vague on this, but I believe in the BBC interview Jari described it as a mitochondrial match so I would think we are left to assume that M is T1a1 as is the semen depositor. And as John pointed out, it doesn't seem to be particularly rare.

It's the fact that they obtained T1a1 from some kind of database match, and didn't mention in the book whether 'M' was T1a1, that puzzles me.

In the case of the Karen Miller match, the presence of the global private mutation would seem to indicate a familial relationship with the blood depositor even if only a small segment was recovered.

But clearly we have to take all of this with a grain of salt until it's properly published.

Yes. I think we need more data. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Though it is pretty irresistible.

[John G]

Lol!

The irony of course is that, as you noted, the real number for T1a1 might be over two times that, if you base it on the whole population of Britain (as the 400,000 number was).

Yes, wonder if Trevor does irony!

[Theagenes]

It's the fact that they obtained T1a1 from some kind of database match, and didn't mention in the book whether 'M' was T1a1, that puzzles me.



Yes. I think we need more data. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Though it is pretty irresistible.

I've certainly been guilty of it, though I try to use lots of caveats and qualifiers.